Mathews v. Denver Newspaper Agency LLP
649 F.3d 1199
10th Cir.2011Background
- Mathews, a unionized Unit Supervisor at the Denver Newspaper Agency, was demoted in July 2005 after an investigation into alleged inappropriate comments and related union grievances.
- Mathews pursued a grievance under the CBA alleging national-origin discrimination and retaliation; arbitration occurred in 2006 focusing on contractual discrimination claims under the CBA.
- The arbitrator ruled against Mathews, finding the Agency had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the demotion and denying the grievance.
- Mathews later received SSA disability benefits, with a finding of total disability as of June 11, 2005, affecting his ability to work.
- Mathews filed statutory claims under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 in federal court; the district court granted summary judgment based on waiver/preclusion and on a separate merit ground of non-qualification, including judicial estoppel.
- On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held waiver/preclusion did not apply because the arbitration clause did not expressly cover statutory claims, but affirmed dismissal of the discriminatory demotion claim on the basis of judicial estoppel, and remanded for further proceedings on the retaliatory demotion claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does arbitration preclude statutory Title VII claims? | Mathews argues the arbitration covered statutory claims, constituting waiver. | Agency contends the arbitration addressed only contractual rights and precluded statutory claims. | Waiver/preclusion do not apply; arbitration did not expressly cover statutory claims. |
| Was Mathews' discriminatory demotion established under McDonnell Douglas? | Mathews contends indirect evidence shows discrimination; he was qualified for Unit Supervisor. | Agency argues no prima facie case since Mathews cannot prove qualification due to disability and judicial estoppel. | Discriminatory demotion claim fails due to judicial estoppel barring qualification evidence. |
| Was judicial estoppel properly applied to Mathews' claim of qualification for the job? | Mathews asserts SSA disability statements do not foreclose qualification at time of demotion. | Agency asserts inconsistent SSA statements justify estoppel. | Judicial estoppel properly applied; Mathews cannot prove he was qualified at demotion time. |
| Does the arbitral finding preclude or weigh against Mathews' retaliation claim? | Arbitrator's findings weight should be considered but do not bar retaliation evidence. | Arbitrator's findings should preclude a retaliation claim if dispositive. | Waiver/preclusion do not apply to retaliation claim; issues to be addressed on remand. |
| What is the proper disposition of the retaliation claim on appeal? | Retaliation claim survives if prima facie shown and not precluded by arbitral decision. | Retaliation claim is precluded by prior arbitral findings and lack of evidence of causation. | Retaliatory demotion claim to be reconsidered; district court's waiver/preclusion ruling reversed in part. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gardner-Denver Co. v. Banco de Denver, 415 U.S. 36 (1974) (arbitration cannot preclude statutory claims when arbitration covers only contractual rights)
- 14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett, 556 U.S. 247 (2009) (union-arbitration clause may waive right to judicial forum for statutory claims when clear and unmistakable)
- Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991) (arbitration agreements can waive judicial forum for statutory rights when clearly expressed)
- Wright v. Universal Maritime Service Corp., 525 U.S. 70 (1998) (clear and unmistakable waiver required for union-arbitration of statutory rights)
- Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc., 450 U.S. 728 (1981) (preclusion concerns in arbitral and statutory rights context)
- McDonald v. City of West Branch, 466 U.S. 284 (1984) (preclusion and arbitration considerations in civil rights litigation)